Posted on 09/22/2003 12:14:29 PM PDT by AntiGuv
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is about to cut the number of employment visas it offers to highly qualified foreign workers from 195,000 to 65,000, immigration experts said on Monday.
Unless Congress acts by the end of this month -- and there is little sign it will do so -- the change will automatically take effect on Oct. 1. Employers, especially technology companies, argue the move will hurt them and the economy.
The change will affect the number of H1-B visas that can be issued each fiscal year. The visas are mostly used to bring high-tech experts from Asia, especially from the Indian sub-continent, to work in the United States for up to three years.
"The fact that Congress doesn't seem anxious to act reflects the political climate, with a lack of jobs for Americans," said New York immigration lawyer Cyrus Mehta.
"The pressure to change the limit will build up again when the economy picks up."
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the issue last week. Republican chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah noted that many U.S. high-tech workers are unemployed and the committee needed to find ways of helping them without hurting the country's ability to compete globally.
Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy said: "Given the weakness of our current economy, and the rising unemployment we have experienced under President Bush's stewardship, many who supported the increase in 2000 now believe that 65,000 visas are sufficient."
But Patrick Duffy, Human Resources Attorney for Intel Corporation, said finding the best-educated engineering talent from around the world was critical to his company's future.
"We expect that we will continue to sponsor H-1B employees in the future for the simple reason that we cannot find enough U.S. workers with the advanced education, skills, and expertise we need," he said.
Elizabeth Dickson, director of immigration services for the Ingersoll-Rand Company, speaking on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said: "In the near-term, we simply must have access to foreign nationals. Many of them have been educated in the United States. By sending them home, we are at best sending them to our own foreign plant sites, and at worst to our competitors."
Immigration attorneys expect the new rules to set off a scramble by companies to fill their slots early before the ceiling is reached. How quickly that happens depends on the state of the economy, they said.
Baloney! Fire a few lawyers and they can find the money to hire engineers. Plenty of "unattached"and qualified guys just in the DFW area.
Don't be daft. Americans aren't going to pay MORE money for foreign goods and services when they can get better quality and faster turnarounds here in the U.S.
I think we've been had. From what I get from the article and elsewhere this is a Republican re-election ploy. The GOP congress is worried about job creation (or lack thereof) only because it will hurt them at the polls. Cutting down on the visas will increase white collar jobs for Americans which will show on the records as lower unemployment and greater growth. This wins votes and neutralizes Democrat attacks. As a extra bonus is showing the base they care about the immagration issue. Guarenteed after Nov.'04 it's back to business as usual, the numbers will get adjusted upwards - probably higher than they are now.
It doesn't matter. By definition, what we are talking about is the offshore production of goods or services that are coming back into the U.S.
But the U.S. buyer is re-selling (in one form or another) those goods or services to other Americans for U.S. Dollars.
And the foreign producer of those goods or services are paying their local employees in the currency of that country (e.g. Rupees in India or Yuan in China).
So if the foreign exchange traded value of the U.S. Dollar declines, then those goods and services cost more to Americans...and at the same time, U.S. products appear cheaper in the U.S. (versus the foreign competition) and actually **are** cheaper when exported to those foreign countries.
"We expect that we will continue to sponsor H-1B employees in the future for the simple reason that we cannot find enough U.S. workers with the advanced education, skills, and expertise we need," he said."
He's a go**amned liar. There are plenty of educated and skilled AMERICAN workers who are pounding the bricks as we speak. Problem is, they won't work for a fraction of the pay and a bowl of curry (or rice).
You are missing the point. Even if IBM moved to Hong Kong, IBM's main clients are still in the U.S.
Those U.S. clients are paying IBM in U.S. Dollars.
If the U.S. Dollar declines in value, then whoever is in Hong Kong will have to demand MORE U.S. Dollars for those same goods and services that are being exported to the U.S. (i.e. that means things from overseas cost more here).
Well, devalue the Dollar far enough and all of a sudden it will cost MORE to import goods and services than for what they can be made in the U.S.
This is pretty basic stuff. Very basic economics. It's sad that it's taking multiple posts to convey such rudimentary information to posters on FR.
No doubt public schooling isn't what it should be here...
Happens all the time. [sob]
Let the Indians buy all these products --- what is needed next would be tariffs that get added to products made in other countries --- a "foreign tax" that makes up for what our high income taxes, business tax, and costs of all the regulations imposed by the government cost. For example if $5 of a $10 product made in the US really goes to taxes, worker's comp, social security etc etc, then $5 should be added to a similar product made in another country.
Not necessarily. Even in cases in which barriers exist, these barriers may be insignificant in relation to the benefits that I could realize from hiring the more productive or valuable immigrant over the less productive or valuable American. In a free society, I should be free to hire anyone regardless of his nationality, at least as long as that person is here legally.
It would also tell you that trust and security are greater with your countrymen than with new immigrants.
Not necessarily. It depends on the moral character of the individuals involved. I'm better off hiring an immigrant of high moral character over an American of low moral character.
If you don't have even a basic loyalty or concern for your country, your rational self-interest would tell you to run fast, because the angry mobs of exploited workers are coming to burn down your immigration import house.
Maybe in the Nazi Germany of the 1930s, but not in the United States -- at least not yet. In this country, we should have the freedom to employ the best person for the job, regardless of nationality.
Welcome to capitalism 101. If person A puts out a better product or service at the same or lower price than person B, then person A should prevail in the marketplace. As an American citizen, I should be free to hire person A without interference from person B acting through the coercive power of government -- which is exactly what the change in immigration policy attempts to do.
Let me give a personal example of what I think we are losing here. My mother and her family immigrated to this country 50 years ago. Neither of them spoke a word of English at the time. Her father (my late grandfather), a civil engineer, eventually founded a construction company in Pennsylvania that employed hundreds of people for decades. My mother has owned and operated a business (a successful restaurant) for over 20 years and is currently building a second restaurant. Neither one of them took jobs or wealth from Americans who were already here, but created new jobs and wealth of their own and thereby enriched the lives of the thousands of Americans with whom they did business.
These people are the people against whom the new immigration policy is aimed. The resulting losses to this country will be incalculable. Meanwhile, the overpriced and therefore unemployed American worker will continue to be overpriced and unemployed.
Really? An H1-B is REQUIRED to go home after 6 years. (Where they often take the skills they learned here to start/work for companies that compete with their former US employer.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.